On Fri, 2009-03-13 at 00:34 -0400, noah_mendelsohn@us.ibm.com wrote:
> I'm going to answer part of this now, and part of this later. One reason
> is to keep the response from getting long, but the main reason is that I'm
> out of network contact at the moment and can't follow links. So, with
> regard to some of your questions and points:
>
> Larry Masinter writes:
>
> > * ACTION-227 Summarize TAG work on metadata, with Larry
> > While Jonathan has done this action (great job, no help from
> > me), I don't see a follow-on ACTION or associated ISSUE. It's
> > on our agenda, but I suggest leaving the ACTION open until
> > we've decided what to do next.
>
> That's not how we've traditionally used the action mechanism.
no? To my mind, "pending review" is exactly that: the action
owner is done with it, but the group should consider, now
that it's done, whether that puts matters in a terminal state
or whether something else should be done.
> The action
> to Jonathan was to produce a document and I believe we all agree that's
> done, so the action gets closed.
Only if we don't need the action as a place-holder to cause
the matter to come back on our agenda in the future.
> Insofar as there's any nervousness that
> I would forget to schedule followup discussion, the right mechanism is for
> me to give myself another action to do that.
That seems awkward.
> As it happens, I did
> schedule the discussion on today's agenda, and I keep my own notes on what
> needs to be scheduled for upcoming meetings.
That centralizes things in an unhealthy way, IMO.
--
Dan Connolly, W3C http://www.w3.org/People/Connolly/
gpg D3C2 887B 0F92 6005 C541 0875 0F91 96DE 6E52 C29E